DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-21 and 24) in the reply filed on 01/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 1-21 and 24 remained pending claim claims 22, 23 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Drawings
Figure 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following limitation must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“the second ring structure comprises one or more raised or recessed portions on a surface thereof” in claim 13,
“a plurality of further openings therethrough to expose an axially facing surface of the plurality of magnets” in claim 17,
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recited: “The rotor body of any preceding claim”, such limitation should be changed to -- The rotor body of
Claim 21 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 21 not been further treated on the merits.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Odling et al. (US 2024/0195245 A1).
RE claim 1, Odling teaches a rotor 10 for an axial flux machine (¶ 66 and Figs.1, 4), the rotor 10 comprising: a disc-shaped rotor body 14 having an axis of rotation (around shaft 26, see Fig.4 and ¶ 93), the disc-shaped rotor body formed of a fibre reinforced composite material (¶ 72, 73) and having an opening at the axis of rotation; a plurality of permanent magnets 22 mounted to a first face of the rotor body circumferentially around the axis of rotation (Fig.1), the plurality of permanent magnets 22 arranged in a Halbach array configuration ¶ 84).
RE claim 2/1, Odling teaches a first ring structure (14) configured to support a surface of the plurality of magnets 22 closest to the axis of rotation; and a second ring structure 24 configured to compress a surface of the plurality of magnets 22 furthest from the axis of rotation (Fig.3).
RE claim 11/2, Odling teaches the second ring structure 24 is formed of a fibre reinforced composite material (¶ 72).
RE claim 12/2, Odling teaches the second ring structure 24 is a pre-stretched ring structure (¶ 72).
RE claim 14/1, Odling teaches the plurality of permanent magnets 22 are mounted to the first face by an adhesive bond 18b (Fig.3).
RE claim 15/1, Odling teaches the rotor body is formed of a sheet moulding compound (¶ 19).
RE claim 24, Odling teaches a rotor body 10 (Fig.1) for a rotor of an axial flux machine (¶ 1), the rotor body 10 having a disc-shape having an axis of rotation (Fig.1), the disc-shaped rotor body 10 being formed of a fibre reinforced composite material (¶ 24, 27, 54 and 55) and having an opening at the axis of rotation (see Fig.3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odling in view of Koeda (US 2021/0273501 A1).
RE claim 3/1, Odling has been discussed above. Odling does not teach the first ring structure is formed of a metal.
Koeda suggest that rotor can be made of any suitable non-magnetic material such as titanium or an alloy of titanium so that the rotor support less easily affects magnetic fluxes by the permanent magnet and the coil. A problem such as a decrease in torque less easily occurs (¶ 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koeda by having the first ring structure is formed of a metal, as taught by Koeda, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 4/3, as discussed above, Koeda teaches the metal comprises a poorly electrically conducting and non-magnetic metal or alloy (titanium alloy).
RE claim 5/4, as discussed above, Koeda teaches the metal is titanium or a titanium alloy (¶ 34).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odling in view of Muller (US 2023/0344290 A1).
RE claim 10/2, Odling has been discussed above. Odling does not teach a surface of the first ring structure is provided with a plurality of corrugation structures.
Muller suggests that a surface of the first ring structure is provided with a plurality of corrugation structures (Fig.13, 14). The corrugation structures can provide fin type configuration which can improve cooling efficiency of the rotor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Odling by having a surface of the first ring structure is provided with a plurality of corrugation structures, as taught by Muller, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odling in view of Enomoto (JP 2018082578 A, the machine translation of which has been provided).
RE claim 13, Odling has been discussed above. Odling does not teach the second ring structure comprises one or more raised or recessed portions on a surface thereof.
Enomoto teaches the second ring structure 2 comprises one or more raised or recessed portions on a surface thereof (Fig.6B), such structure of the member 2 provided an improvement of heat conduction and reduction of friction loss (windage loss) with air (see translation page 5 last two ¶).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Odling by having the second ring structure comprises one or more raised or recessed portions on a surface thereof, as taught by Enomoto, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odling in view of Williams (US 6046518).
RE claim 16/1, Odling has been discussed above. Odling does not teach the rotor body comprises one or more ribs on a second face of the rotor body.
Williams teaches rotor body comprises one or more ribs (spoke) 124 (Fig.4) on a second face of the rotor body (Figs.1, 4), such structure provided strength while minimizing the weight of the cover (col.3: 40-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Odling by having the rotor body comprises one or more ribs on a second face of the rotor body, as taught by Williams, for the same reasons as discussed above.
RE claim 17/1, Odling has been discussed above. Odling does not teach the rotor body defines a plurality of further openings therethrough to expose an axially facing surface of the plurality of magnets.
Williams teaches rotor body defines a plurality of further openings 131 (Fig.4) therethrough to expose an axially facing surface of the plurality of magnets 40-55 (Figs.2-4 and col.3: 40-45), doing so would also reduce weight and circulate air for heat exchange during operation of the motor (col.3: 40-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Odling by having rotor body defines a plurality of further openings therethrough to expose an axially facing surface of the plurality of magnets, as taught by Williams, for the same reasons as discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
RE claim 6/2, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, the first ring structure is mounted to the first face in one of a plurality of positions relative to the first face, and is configured to be moveable to another of the plurality of positions to control a centre of mass of the rotor.
Claim 7 is allowable for its dependency on claim 6.
RE claim 8/2, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, the first ring structure is joined to the surface of the plurality of magnets closest to the axis of rotation with an adhesive bond layer the adhesive bond layer being configured to prevent direct contact between first ring structure and the plurality of magnets.
RE claim 9/2, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, an extent of the first ring structure in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation is less than an extent of the magnets in said direction, thereby leaving a portion of the surface of the plurality of magnets uncovered by the first ring structure.
Claims 18-20 are allowable for similar reason as claims 6 and 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834